Featured Post

About Me

I am Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I am also the editor of the academic journal The Latin Americanist.

28
comments:

There may be members of the PP who are part and parcel of the accusations in the media. Nonetheless so are many Basques, the PSOE stronghold is industrial Vizcaya, the progressive paper of record, El Pais, as well as many other who see ETA not as a liberation movement but a terrorist group. Note Chavez does not deny the charges but attacks the accusers. Once again he blames the USA. The papers report that Reyes computer implicated Venezuela in aiding the FARC and ETA, but so did other evidence. For example, there have been numerous defections from FARC in Colombia and they are talking.

No where does Chavez deny the aid his functionaries provided to ETA and FARC. Instead he plays shoot the messenger, a Spanish judge. Here is a quote on the evidence beyond Reyes' computer. Do you need me to translate for you? Facts are stubborn things, professor.

He (Chavez) told reporters: “All that it’s like an orchestra. On one side there’s the royal Spanish court and on the other side there’s Washington. And finally there’s the court of Human Rights, which the other day dedicated nearly 300 pages to us. And that is no coincidence, it’s all orchestrated. Behind all that of course is the Yankee empire.”

He (Chavez) told reporters: “All that it’s like an orchestra. On one side there’s the royal Spanish court and on the other side there’s Washington. And finally there’s the court of Human Rights, which the other day dedicated nearly 300 pages to us. And that is no coincidence, it’s all orchestrated. Behind all that of course is the Yankee empire.”

And?

Plenty of what Chavez says is true. I seriously doubt that Chavez has grounds to dismiss all of the OAS human rights court's charges, but one would have to be extremely naive to believe that "human rights" don't get politicized when so many of the players at the table have ulterior motives.

When I say he did not deny the charges, I mean there are a plethora of source materials and levels of charges. None specifically were addressed by the Venezuelans. By saying this comes from relics of Spanish colonialism, the worst of the Spanish right, Spanish fascists or US imperialism, is not a serious denial. It rates right up there with calling Hillary a "blonde Condelezza" on the truthiness scale.

It rates right up there with calling Hillary a "blonde Condelezza" on the truthiness scale.

Uh, actually, the "blonde Condoleeza" bit is probably higher on the truthiness scale than anything you've ever written here. The Clintons are so close to the neo-cons as to be virtually indistinguishable from them. In terms of concrete policy toward Latin America, one struggles to find any difference between Hillary and Condoleeza. I think any serious analyst of the U.S. foreign policy establishment understands this.

The fact that there are more tensions between Brazil and the U.S. now than under Bush should be a wake-up call for you.

This was a nine year investigation by a judge of the same court that indicted Pinochet. Read the text for yourself.

All of the specific accusations of which you speak are based on information from Reyes' supposed laptops, which are not admissable evidence in a court of law because they've been improperly handled. Nevertheless, let's suppose for a moment that the accusations are true. Even if they were true, it's worth noting that Uribe himself doesn't consider it a slam-dunk case against the Venezuelan government. I gave you the link, so you can read his statements on the matter if you'd like.

Notice the double standard at work here. Nobody in the U.S. foreign policy establishment ever claims that Alvaro Uribe is directly implicated in paramilitarism on account of the fact that a number of his past ministers have been convicted and imprisoned on just such a charge. But somehow, if a low-level functionary in the Venezuelan government's Ministry of Land and Agriculture were to have illicit dealings with the FARC and ETA, this somehow constitutes grounds for carte blanche accusations against the entire Venezuelan government.

The double standards are astounding. As far as I'm concerned, this is all just a big joke.

Of course there is a difference between the Clintons in the 1990s and Bush/Rice. The Clinton administration was not faced with a series of governments that allied themselves together in a group called ALBA. Oil was at $20 a barrel. Chavez did not take power until 1998. So, except for Clinton's hard line on Cuba (domestic political considerations), his presidency was not noted for the confrontation of Bush's. The latter, facing a rather different geopolitical climate, advised by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, Negroponte, Reich and Rice, was immune to criticism. Clinton left feelings of benign neglect, the importance of democracy and the Washington Consensus (both good and bad). Hilary Clinton's tenure has not been marked by just friction in Latin America.

"All of the specific accusations of which you speak are based on information from Reyes' supposed laptops, which are not admissable evidence in a court of law because they've been improperly handled."

Since you won't read the indictment itself, here is the journalistic account in El Pais of what eyewitnesses describe in police interviews. It is not from Reyes' computer. It is all plainly admissable in a court of law.

"Now, with regard to whether there's any truth to the accusations against Venezuela, I don't know, but I'm skeptical of all sides' claims because there are too many political interests at stake here." posted at 12 midnight.

"The double standards are astounding. As far as I'm concerned, this is all just a big joke." at 1:40am.

Double standards? You changed your mind in less than two hours. Seems to me, professor, your protestations of open-mindedness, or "skepticism" of all sides, are a bit shallow.

Of course there is a difference between the Clintons in the 1990s and Bush/Rice. The Clinton administration was not faced with a series of governments that allied themselves together in a group called ALBA. Oil was at $20 a barrel. Chavez did not take power until 1998. So, except for Clinton's hard line on Cuba (domestic political considerations), his presidency was not noted for the confrontation of Bush's. The latter, facing a rather different geopolitical climate, advised by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, Negroponte, Reich and Rice, was immune to criticism. Clinton left feelings of benign neglect, the importance of democracy and the Washington Consensus (both good and bad). Hilary Clinton's tenure has not been marked by just friction in Latin America.

Tweedle dum, tweedle dee.

From the perspective of much of the world, there has basically been continuity between Condoleezza and Hillary. You operate in a very narrow political spectrum, where tiny cosmetic differences are dressed up as sea changes. The core assumptions never change.

No, actually, you lack basic skills in reading comprehension. The joke is that, even if the Spanish judge's accusations were true, they wouldn't amount to a carte blanche indictment of the Venezuelan government. The U.S. foreign policy establishment can't, on the one hand, look the other way when top-level ministers in Uribe's government go to prison for their support of paramilitarism and then, on the other hand, scream bloody murder when a low-level functionary in the Venezuelan government's Ministry of Land and Agriculture is accused of illicit dealings with the FARC and ETA. That's the joke.

I will concede that the only way you have of winning an argument is relativistic distractions, dismissing facts by shooting the messenger, avoiding the plain meaning of words and declaring yourself victor. You, as always, are welcome to the last word.

How is it a "distraction" to point out that you and the U.S. foreign policy establishment have no consistent STANDARDS of assessment?

You can't claim to have any consistent set of standards when you look the other way as top-level ministers in Uribe's government go to prison for supporting brutal paramilitaries and then scream bloody murder the minute you hear that a low-level functionary in Venezuela's Ministry of Land and Agriculture is accused of illicit dealings with the FARC and ETA.

Not even Uribe himself is that hypocritical.

Until such time as you act in accordance with a consistent set of standards, you have no ethical foundation upon which to base your arguments.

The US foreign policy establishment is not the subject of the indictment. Nor am I. It is the Venezuelan government. That is called changing the subject (e.g. relativistic argument). The argument is not about my moral standards nor the Spanish judge (e.g. shooting the messenger). The indictment does not mean that I believe anything other than there an ongoing investigation that deserves Venezuela's attention. Instead of denying this all in a ridiculous manner, you might admit the investigation comes from more than Raul Reyes' computer (e.g. 9 year investigation, numerous eyewitness accounts are facts) and echoing the party line coming from Caracas.

The indictment does not mean that I believe anything other than there an ongoing investigation that deserves Venezuela's attention.

The very notion that this deserves people's attention suggests that you interpret this as evidence of high-level complicity on the part of the Venezuelan government, but that's not even the case that's being presented by the Spanish judge.

People like you and Greg have a curious tendency to suggest to others that whatever concocted "scandal" involving Venezuela is somehow worthy of our attention. But when the ex-chief of intelligence of an allied government (Uribe's) goes to jail for supporting brutal paramilitaries, neither you nor Greg will see that as something that merits our attention. (I don't think it's a coincidence that the name "Jorge Noguera" does not appear in a search of Greg's site about "Latin America").

The problem is that your notion of what merits people's attention (and what doesn't) is not rooted in any real ethical standards.

You still haven't read the indictment. The charge is that Venezuela has sponsored training between FARC and ETA on Venezuelan soil. That this is all due to a renegade low-level bureaucrat is silly. First off, ETA terrorists exiled to Venezuela from Algeria (under Spanish diplomatic pressure) do not usually get any government jobs. Secondly, they are monitored. Thirdly, when a friendly government (Spain under Zapatero) asks for information, typically you cooperate out of a reciprocal disgust for terrorism. Nevertheless Chavez turns everything into a media shitstorm with ludicrous denials and you believe it. That high level officials did not know about FARC and ETA training in their own country is to suggest manifest incompetence or complicity. The investigation should continue.

Notice, again, the amazing double standard here. If the actual testimony points to no more than a low-level functionary in the Venezuelan case, this suddenly becomes evidence of high-level complicity. If, on the other hand, a high-level official in Colombia is found to be directly complicit with paramilitaries, all you folks who coalesce around the positions of the U.S. foreign policy establishment will just ignore the case altogether.

Nothing could more clearly demonstrate that you have no consistent set of standards upon which you base your interpretations.

Ten reasons why Uribe might have said what he said. Not in ranked order. Not mutually exclusive of your point of view.1. Venezuela's support for FARC is the real threat to Colombia.2. The Venezuelan government's support for FARC is sufficiently demonstrated to not need the help of a Spanish indictment for further proof.3. Alvaro Uribe was meeting with President Lionel Fernandez to mediate the dispute leftover from the Cancun summit. Bad timing to criticize Chavez.4. Uribe, unlike Chavez, likes to play the role of statesman.5. There is no need to add gasoline to the fire when your opponent is lighting his own house on fire.6. If you look at his full comments they include that Venezuela should cooperate with all countries in fighting terrorism. 7. This is a big issue for Spain where ETA is a 40 year cancer but pales in significance to FARC's threat to Colombia.8. As a prudent man he waits to see the evidence before he decides to blame Chavez.9. Colombians were more focused on the bigger political news of his non-reelection and Santos joining the race. He is retiring.10. He may believe that the media shitstorm is just that.